Cannot participate on GitHub without verified email about privacyguides.org HOT 20 CLOSED

Negative

Then, Why not use Free and Open Source, Email Alias Providers such as SimpleLogin and AnnonAddy ?

from privacyguides.org.

I compleatly agree.
I still own this account just because some things like this in wich I can only participate using GitHub.

But for my point of view: It does NOT feel logical to have a privacy focused site on GitHub, and it gets even worse when already exist privacy focused platforms for code hosting & that (like: Codeberg, Gitea, Sourcehut, Notabug, GOGS...)

I hope they move from this hell...

from privacyguides.org.

The traditional argument for using GitHub is that it's necessary for visibility/discoverability of the project and I hear often that one has to have a GitHub account for getting employed in ICT.

In my way I think the solution is using Gitea which added push mirrors in 1.15.0 in an Indieweb POSSE style (Post On your own Site, Syndicate Elsewhere) so that code and issues live in e.g. git.privacyguides.org (I remember PrivacyTools had one, but not why exactly it was shut down) while it automatically pushes changes to GitHub e.g. every 8 hours.

Should someone regardless send PRs at GitHub, they can be merged through git command-line by adding a remote or adding a .patch to the end of PR address especially if it's a small change without requiring an Gitea account. Then again Gitea can be configured to allow GitHub login.

from privacyguides.org.

It stills not a great solution. I mean, if is completely necessary well... But using services like AnnonAddy, SimpleLogin etc etc without selfhosting them is having to put trust on another point, witch is far from ideal...

SimpleLogin published the Source Code for their Server and you can Selfhost yourself. SimpleLogin is Open Source from Top to bottom. So, You can trust them, Blindly

from privacyguides.org.

@atomGit are you able to reply to open discussions? I wasn't aware you could even open issues without a verified email address, that is different behavior than they outline on their support topic.

from privacyguides.org.

negitive

from privacyguides.org.

thanks for the suggestions

still, i find it odd that a privacy focused platform would be using the services of M$

i understand that github offers more features and flexibility than most other platforms, however that's exactly how people are subdued into using services and devices that are anti-privacy - for those that care about privacy, sometimes sacrifices need to be made

from privacyguides.org.

Negative

Then, Why not use Free and Open Source, Email Alias Providers such as SimpleLogin and AnnonAddy ?

It stills not a great solution. I mean, if is completely necessary well... But using services like AnnonAddy, SimpleLogin etc etc without selfhosting them is having to put trust on another point, witch is far from ideal...

I think that the solution is migrating the project to whatever privacy respecting platform.

from privacyguides.org.

SimpleLogin published the Source Code for their Server and you can Selfhost yourself. SimpleLogin is Open Source from Top to bottom. So, You can trust them, Blindly

They are inmho really trustworthy, I mean, even their homepage is OpenSource.
What I'm saying is that they still susceptible to laws and that stuff. And I think that being as "minimalistic" as possible on the internet helps a lot protecting your privacy.

I think that for some threat models it will be no compleatly Okey. But I agree that you can always selfhost it and then you don't have to put any kind of trust on anyone.

Edits: Grammar and formatting.

from privacyguides.org.

The traditional argument for using GitHub is that it's necessary for visibility/discoverability of the project and I hear often that one has to have a GitHub account for getting employed in ICT.

In my way I think the solution is using Gitea which added push mirrors in 1.15.0 in an Indieweb POSSE style (Post On your own Site, Syndicate Elsewhere) so that code and issues live in e.g. git.privacyguides.org (I remember PrivacyTools had one, but not why exactly it was shut down) while it automatically pushes changes to GitHub e.g. every 8 hours.

Should someone regardless send PRs at GitHub, they can be merged through git command-line by adding a remote or adding a .patch to the end of PR address especially if it's a small change without requiring an Gitea account. Then again Gitea can be configured to allow GitHub login.

I don't think that I fully understood what you said, sorry. But I think that I got the main idea (or something like that): Are you referring to have a repo on Github and another in Gitea and have them "synched" in some way?

Because I can understand the issue about visibility and work (and etc) but I think that having liberty to choose from where contribute would be cool.

P.S: Sorry for the big chunk of text, I cannot properly edit it on my phone.

from privacyguides.org.

Are you referring to have a repo on Github and another in Gitea and have them "synched" in some way?

Basically my suggestion is to have a repository on (self-hosted) Gitea and have it send changes to read-only GitHub.

• 
  • Gitea push mirror example from Gitea blog

...I think that having liberty to choose from where contribute would be cool.

I fear actively accepting contributions on multiple different places is not going to work, unless PrivacyGuides delegates a team member to solely copy issues around as that takes a lot of effort and time.

Should someone regardless send PRs at GitHub, they can be merged through git command-line by adding a remote or adding a .patch to the end of PR address especially if it's a small change without requiring an Gitea account. Then again Gitea can be configured to allow GitHub login.

By this I meant purely code, for example PR 91 patch or git config --add remote.origin.fetch '+refs/pull/*/head:refs/remotes/origin/pr/*' which are trivial to merge as long as the change isn't too big for the team to review without GitHub features.

from privacyguides.org.

There is the issue of participation, many people already have a github account, and having to sign up for another account inherently increases the barrier to entry of e.g submitting patches and issues, if PG wants to migrate to gittea, then i suggest that you keep issues open here so people can submit them, and then use a bot to submit them to the gittea instance with a bot (openmw did something similar, although it was static, i.e one and done)

from privacyguides.org.

I also vote on moving out of Github.
Serious privacy projects (like F-droid or Calyx) aren't here, because that would be inconsistent with what they are trying to accomplish.
Repository can be mirrored to Github (and others) for visibility, but main development shouldn't be here.

It's like joining a privacy conference on Teams or Zoom... If I see that, I can't take them seriously...

What about Gitlab? Gitlab is open source. Github isn't.

from privacyguides.org.

What about Gitlab?

• bullies tor users
• uses ReCaptcha IIRC
• denies login if you use RFP
• disables issue search if you aren't logged in
• can not be viewed without javascript
• uses google-analytics

from privacyguides.org.

Does anyone have ideas on how to take action on this issue or should it be converted into a discussion of general category?

from privacyguides.org.

The 6 members of the project should take a vote and make a decision, or if they prefer make a pool asking the contributors also.
In my opinion, I think most would agree that for this project, almost anything is better than github. The discussion is more of, "where to go" not "if to go". You can always keep a mirror on github, if you like, but development, issues, PRs, etc, should be somewhere else.

from privacyguides.org.

The discussion is more of, "where to go" not "if to go".

i would definitely suggest considering Codeberg and Savannah - neither depend on any 3rd party resources to load the site and both share the free software ethic

from privacyguides.org.

Does Netlify's continuous deployment work with providers other than GitHub, GitLab or Bitbucket?

from privacyguides.org.

Does anything else currently offer direct competition to GitHub Discussions?

• https://github.com/privacyguides/privacyguides.org/discussions

Personally I see it as something beneficial to be included in the same place as issues so there is no need for additional work for either users (different credential) or admins (setting up and maintaining a forum software)

I did mention the vote/poll suggestion to the team though

from privacyguides.org.

A while ago, as a team, we decided to use GitHub for the Privacy Guides project. We based this decision on the free features that GitHub offers such as it's actions. I doubt we will change from this setup in the near future.

from privacyguides.org.